>...so how do you see the appeal going for us? All points, some points, no points... ?
I truly have no firm grip on this. The BBC have had sight of the LU side of the argument and they have had it checked by a sports lawyer. They think that LU have a strong and thorough case. Nobody has seen the other sides case AFAIK so there is only half a story. I have not seen any of the documents personally, to date. As well as this "attack" document I suspect possible "defensive" moves by the club. Perhaps it should be expected. For example the Radio Leeds v YR saga gives greater credence to the YR voting rights at the creditors meeting. (Why didn't RL get any voting rights ?) This may well be a total irrelevance or alternatively this could be in case the other side attack the structure of the voting, which after all the Revenue already pinpointed. Of course this may be outside the scope of the arbitration - but we don't actually know the scope AFAIK. Because we made use of an escape clause attached to the procedure as a whole I can understand if nothing is excluded from the scope. That we did NOT comply with the laid down procedure for regaining the "golden share" is NOT in question. The argument is two-fold as I see it. We can argue that non-compliance was not our fault but I don't think that will wash in a closed doors hearing. The potential consequences of non-compliance were known prior to administration. Simple - no golden share at all. We still took the route of Administration. The "special circumstances" rule was a significant feature of the first creditors meeting so it was very much part of the calculations and manoeuvrings from the outset. The rules had an escape clause (special circumstances) but as it was an escape clause there was no fixed tariff attached to it. If a points tariff had been pre-set then unscrupulous people might make a judgement that a certain number of points being deducted was financially preferable to exiting via a CVA. There is nothing to say that there was no price to pay at all - only that it was not pre-determined. If there is a NIL price attached then the need for exiting with a CVA is made a nonsense and that rule becomes redundant. This implies that a certain level of penalty (of some sort) MUST be applied IMHO. As the LU decision was not a precedent then the tariff remains undetermined. That leaves us arguing with the level of tariff applied. In circumstances of a club emerging from administration a financial penalty might be deemed inappropriate and also subject to the kind of exploitation above. The only thing remotely like a precedent is the well established initial ten point deduction. I have always thought that it would be relatively easy to return 5 points and leave in place a second 10 point deduction for the second breach, especially as we took advantage of the rules as they were at the time in order to avoid any serious punishment as a result of the first ten point deduction. My guess is for 5 points coming back to us but I'm not putting any money on it. I think the chances of all 15 being returned are very low IMHO but that could simply be my ignorance of some crucial legal point. I can easily see the 15 point deduction being ratified. What I would suggest though is that the lawyers involved will not be easily swayed by outside influences and any suggestion that they might be swayed (just in case anyone is thinking of any such attempt) could be counter-productive in the extreme. _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist DELETE THE FOOTERS WHEN REPLYING YOU LAZY SODS!!!! DELETE THE FOOTERS WHEN REPLYING YOU LAZY SODS!!!!
